What is a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement?

After the Court has held a preliminary approval hearing, it may grant final approval of a class action settlement. (Rules of Ct. 3.769(a); Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800.)

In order to grant final approval of a class action settlement, the Court must find that the settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244-245.) The burden is on the proponent of the settlement to show that it is fair and reasonable. (Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 245.)

“[A] presumption of fairness exists where:

  1. the settlement is reached through arm's-length bargaining;
  2. investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently;
  3. counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and
  4. the percentage of objectors is small.”

(Dunk v. Ford Motor Company (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1802.)

The Court also considers such factors as “the strength of plaintiffs' case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Company (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.)

“The list of factors is not exclusive and the court is free to engage in a balancing and weighing of factors depending on the circumstances of each case.” (Wershba v. Apple 18 Computer, Inc., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 245.) The court must examine the “proposed settlement agreement to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties.” (Id.)

Before final approval of a class action settlement, notice must be given to the class. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.769(e), (f).)

Certification of the class and the awarded attorney fee must also be deemed proper. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 8 Cal.App.4th 1794.)

Useful Rulings on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Recent Rulings on Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

MCSWAIN VS AXOS BANK [E-FILE]

The Court will sign the [PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT - ROA # 67 - at the hearing of this Motion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LOPEZ VS. PAYAL HOTELS, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement is granted, except that the court approves plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees only in the amount of $185,739.43, and awards an enhancement to plaintiff Cesar Lopez only in the amount of $5,000.

  • Hearing

LOPEZ VS. PAYAL HOTELS, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement is granted, except that the court approves plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees only in the amount of $185,739.43, and awards an enhancement to plaintiff Cesar Lopez only in the amount of $5,000.

  • Hearing

WIDZER VS. CAPELLA UNIVERSITY, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Good Faith Determination of Class Action Settlement is granted. A Final Approval Hearing is set for March 26, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

WIDZER VS. CAPELLA UNIVERSITY, INC.

The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Good Faith Determination of Class Action Settlement to January 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel must file supplemental papers addressing the court’s concerns (not fully revised papers that would have to be re-read) at least 16 days before the next hearing date.

  • Hearing

HARO LOPEZ VS. TW SERVICES, INC.

Plaintiff Miguel Haro Lopez's Motion for an Order 1)Preliminary Approving the Class Action Settlement; 2) Approving Notice of Class Action Settlement; and 3)Setting Hearing for Final Approval The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing filed in response to the October 16, 2020 minute order. The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED as to the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement, as amended. (See ROA 92, Ex. E.)

  • Hearing

ARCHIBEQUE VS. D. BESER VENTURE CAPITAL, LLC

The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Representative Enhancements to January 22, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel must file supplemental papers addressing the court’s concerns (not fully revised papers that would have to be re-read) at least 16 days before the next hearing date.

  • Hearing

BELL VS. THE MOTORCYCLE COMPANY, LLC

Plaintiffs Austin Bell, Javier Solorio, Tony Amato, Donald Dashner, and Timothy Gouirand's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and Class Representative Enhancement Payments The motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. The Court approves the following distributions: 1. Attorney’s fees in the amount of $262,000, or 30% of the GSA plus an additional $7000 to compensate counsel for unexpectedly higher litigation costs.

  • Hearing

ARCHIBEQUE VS. D. BESER VENTURE CAPITAL, LLC

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Representative Enhancements is granted, except that the court approves plaintiffs’ enhancements only in the amounts of $2,000 to plaintiff Taren Archibeque and $1,500 each to plaintiffs Mandukhai Bayarsaikhan and Kathleen Harper, for a total of $5,000.

  • Hearing

ALFRED LAX V. ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY, ET AL.

The final approval hearing shall take place on February 25, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. 1.

  • Hearing

JIMY JUAREZ V. CREATIVE MANUFACTURING SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL.

Class Action Generally, “questions whether a [class action] settlement was fair and reasonable, whether notice to the class was adequate, whether certification of the class was proper, and whether the attorney fee award was proper are matters addressed to the trial court’s broad discretion.” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234-235 (Wershba), disapproved of on other grounds by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260.)

  • Hearing

DILLARD VS FIDELITY NATIONAL F

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FILED BY SUSAN DILLARD * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiffs Susan Dillard and Samantha Menchaca move for final approval of their class action and PAGA settlement, and separately for approval of attorney’s fees, costs, and representative incentive payments. The Court will consider the motions together. A. Background and Settlement Terms The original complaint was filed February 21, 2018.

  • Hearing

MORENO VS PROVIDENCE GROUP INC [E-FILE]

Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. (ROA 56.) The final approval hearing is scheduled for May 28, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in this department. Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees is also scheduled for May 28, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in this department. Plaintiff is directed to submit a revised proposed order within five (5) days identifying the above dates. Plaintiffs' moving papers are to be filed and served per Code.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

HAILE VS BETTER BUZZ COFFEE COMPANY [E-FILE]

Plaintiff Jovana Haile's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is GRANTED. (ROA 48.) The court has reviewed Plaintiff's counsel's supplemental declaration confirming the proposed settlement was submitted to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency on October 21, 2020. (ROA 58.) The final approval hearing is scheduled for May 28, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in this department. Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees is also scheduled for May 28, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in this department.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GARVIN VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT [E-FILE]

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement is GRANTED, subject to the modification to the attorneys' fees amount as set forth below. Background Plaintiff filed his class action complaint against the San Diego Unified Port District ("Port"), to seek refunds on behalf of himself and others similarly situated who rented vehicles and paid $3.50 fees to the rental car companies; the fees were then remitted to the Port.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TYLER V. WESTERN MANAGEMENT, LLC

Any CourtCall fees for an appearance by an objecting class member will be paid by class counsel. 8 The motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement is CONTINUED to 9 December 2, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.

  • Hearing

FONTECCHIO V. FAMILY CARE NETWORK, INC.

approval by this Court; 6) Approving the Notice of Class Action Settlement (“Notice Packet”) to be sent to class members, which is attached as an exhibit to the Settlement Agreement; 7) Appointing Simpluris as the settlement administrator; and 8) Setting the matter for a final fairness and final approval hearing.

  • Hearing

TERESA VARGAS PEREZ VS THE PARSONS GROUP INC

ANALYSIS: The Court will grant the motion, and will preliminarily approve the class action settlement. The purpose of the preliminary approval hearing is to determine whether the settlement is within the range of reasonableness for preliminary approval and to approve or deny certification of a provisional settlement class. A full inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement occurs at the final approval hearing. (Rules of Court, rule 3.769, subd. (g).)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

HAWKINS VS. SAS RETAIL SERVICES, LLC

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, Representative Enhancements, and Settlement Administration Costs are granted, except that the court approves plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees only in the amount of $180,000, and approves plaintiffs’ enhancements only in the amounts of $4,000 for plaintiff Andrae Hawkins and $1,000 for plaintiff Patricia Chagalla.

  • Hearing

PERKINS VS. CHAMBERLAIN HOME SERVICES, INC.

The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Plaintiff Enhancement to January 8, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel must file supplemental papers addressing the court’s concerns (not fully revised papers that would have to be re-read) at least 16 days before the next hearing date.

  • Hearing

RENE ALVAREZ VS BERSHTEL ENTERPRISES LLC

approval hearing.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BELL VS. THE MOTORCYCLE COMPANY, LLC

Plaintiffs Austin Bell, Javier Solorio, Tony Amato, Donald Dashner, and Timothy Gouirand's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and Class Representative Enhancement Payments Motion continued to 11/20/2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX104.

  • Hearing

TOUMA VS BUDEE, INC

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FILED BY GEORGE TOUMA * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff George Touma moves for final approval of his class action and PAGA settlement. A. Background and Settlement Terms The original complaint was filed August 21, 2018. The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint, filed April 20, 2020.

  • Hearing

RAYNISHA BUNTUN (PAGA) VS 1ST CLASS STAFFIN, LLC, AN ARIZONA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

The court having read and considered plaintiff’s unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement and good cause appearing therefrom rules as follows. The court finds the terms of the final proposed class action settlement to be fair, adequate and reasonable. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s motion for approval is GRANTED. Hon. George J. Abdallah Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

CAMPBELL VS FORTUNEBUILDERS INC

Plaintiff Rachel Campbell's unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted. Plaintiff Rachel Campbell's unopposed Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Enhancement Fee for the Class Representative is granted. Plaintiffs have justified the attorney fee award of $166,666.67 as it represents 33% of the total settlement and the request is granted. Plaintiff is awarded costs in the amount of $9,278.9. Some of the costs sought were not adequately justified.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 105     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.